Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Brent P

In article <KtadnbboN5cAZADbnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

> You seem to invent your own language. I think your drinking your own
> Kool-Aid.

I think you're a moron and a bit of a troll. I didn't invent the term
"magic words", it was common in the bicycing newsgroups some years ago.
Seems like the groups have been taken over by idiot POBs.

Brent P

In article <vMWdndD0i4IpmAPbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:

>> If you aren't going to obey the passing spacing laws, why should the
>> driver?

> You're equating minor cosmetic damage to your car with serious bodily
> harm/death. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?

You can be seriously harmed crashing into a parked car. Again, if you're
not going to respect spacing, even for your own safety, why should the
driver?

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> How can we cyclists expect to have a RIGHT to use the road if we
>>> ignore the rules of the road? Violating traffic laws on a bicycle
>>> just convinces more motorists that we do not belong on the roads.
>>
>> Cyclist's right to use the road goes back to the middle ages, if not
>> further.
>
> There were bicycles before the mid 19th Century?

No, but there were wheeled carts. Why do you think it's called "right"
of way?

>
>> In other words, it was built-in, no laws had to be passed to grant
>> them the right (that's why it's called a right). Motor vehicles have
>> always required permission and compliance with an ever stricter set of
>> codes.
>>
>> You can't ban bicycles from public roads.
>
> Really? Bicycles are banned from most controlled access roads in the US.

In the cases I'm aware of only when there are alternate roads available.
The intent is not to ban cycling.


> Banning bicycles from certain non-controlled access has been seriously
> considered in the Texas Legislature.

Serious -- Texas legislature -- oxymoron. And the result was?


> Some local streets even ban bicycles.

Some also ban cars. As far as I know, any attempt to ban bikes while
allowing other vehicles has not stood up to challenge. If you have other
examples I'd like to hear them.

>> If local authorities tried to do it, state authorities would override,
>> if states tried it, the feds would override. Right of free passage on
>> public lands is sacrosanct.
>
> The US is not the UK, and the use of many public lands is severely
> restricted.

How so?

>> To accuse scofflaw cyclists of risking that right is invoking the
>> bogeyman.
>
> In the US, motorists outnumber cyclists. If bicycles were severely
> restricted, would the politicians really be risking their jobs?

Perhaps not, but laws have to meet consistency and precedence
requirements, that's why we have courts.

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>> Well, if it's my skin I'm risking, why should you care? That's my
>> whole point. I don't think laws are intended to protect people from
>> themselves. Actually, I don't think I do risk my skin any more than
>> you (probably less), and since it is my skin, I feel completely
>> entitled to risk it or not as I see fit.
>>
>> No need for name calling.
>
> YOUR behavior on a bicycle leads to a general disrespect of cyclists by
> motorist. This makes things more dangerous for EVERY cyclist.

That's your contention, but I don't find that it holds water logically
or in practice.


> Please don't complain when laws are passed requiring cyclists to use
> second class facilities such as MUPs and "bike lanes", since your
> actions help bring about support for these laws.

Again, I've heard this threat raised repeatedly, but I know of no cases
in the US. MUP's and lanes seem to happen because some groups of
cyclists lobby for them. I'm no fan of either.

There is a danger in mixing slow bikes with fast cars (to cyclists). One
solution is segregated facilities. That approach has a lot of
supporters. I neither believe in "separate but equal" nor just "equal".
In areas of high conflict (densely settled) I think the best solution is
to designate some streets as preferential bike routes with better
accommodations. Those accommodations might include things like wide
right lanes for sharing, traffic calming (low speed limits, humps,
rotaries, etc.), good lighting and surfacing, etc. It's a reasonable
compromise and shouldn't preclude the use of all roads by cyclists.

In recent years, incidents of road rage have increasingly made the
headlines. People who might otherwise, fear riding bikes on streets.
They're not afraid of other cyclists, they're afraid of cars, trucks and
buses. And they should be. Motorist behavior is outrageous -- to bikes,
pedestrians and other motorists, and it's getting worse. Blaming the
victim is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

Luigi de Guzman

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 23:56:00 -0700, Zoot Katz wrote:

> I think cars make people crazy and I'd like to know why that appears to
> be so. I've got a few ideas.

Having been a cyclist before being a motorist, and now being both, I have
a few ideas, too.

When I'm driving, I've got a lot of power right there under my right foot.
I can accelerate like a bat out of hell, and it makes me think
differently about timing and traffic flow. From my time on the bike, I
know that *average* speed is really where it's at, but in the car, I'm
constantly looking at my *instantaneous* speed as reported on the
speedometer.

Traffic in a car is a maddening thing, as well. The machine is just so
damn huge and ungainly compared to a bike. There's just nowhere to go,
and I'm just idling there burning gas. Ugh.

In general, I find that the ability to stomp on the accelerator drives a
lot of bad behavior. You're fed up, and you take it out on the
accelerator, since it's right there, and feedback is immediate. On a
bike, if I get frustrated, well, I just have to deal with it somehow.


--
Luigi de Guzman
http://ouij.livejournal.com

Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole wrote:
>
> [in response to:]
>> Please don't complain when laws are passed requiring cyclists to use
>> second class facilities such as MUPs and "bike lanes", since your
>> actions help bring about support for these laws.
>
> Again, I've heard this threat raised repeatedly, but I know of no cases
> in the US. MUP's and lanes seem to happen because some groups of
> cyclists lobby for them. I'm no fan of either.
>
> There is a danger in mixing slow bikes with fast cars (to cyclists). One
> solution is segregated facilities. That approach has a lot of
> supporters. I neither believe in "separate but equal" nor just "equal".

I agree. In my experience, bike lanes vary from abominable to merely
useless, when compared with the reasonable alternative: sharing an
ordinary traffic lane of sufficient width.

Multi-user paths for transportation purposes are similar, except the few
that serve as useful short cuts. (MUPs make fine linear parks for those
who like them, but those should be paid for by park funds, not
transportation funds.)

> In areas of high conflict (densely settled) I think the best solution is
> to designate some streets as preferential bike routes with better
> accommodations. Those accommodations might include things like wide
> right lanes for sharing, traffic calming (low speed limits, humps,
> rotaries, etc.), good lighting and surfacing, etc. It's a reasonable
> compromise and shouldn't preclude the use of all roads by cyclists.

Those ideas sound reasonable to me.

>
> In recent years, incidents of road rage have increasingly made the
> headlines. People who might otherwise, fear riding bikes on streets.
> They're not afraid of other cyclists, they're afraid of cars, trucks and
> buses. And they should be. Motorist behavior is outrageous -- to bikes,
> pedestrians and other motorists, and it's getting worse. Blaming the
> victim is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

The road rage phenomenon is disturbing, and as Zoot so elegantly points
out, it's something that's generated inside a car. Motorists get really
miserable _any_ time they're forced to move at a slower speed than they
think is their right. Sure, that can happen because there's a bicycle
or pedestrian present, but it happens FAR more often when another couple
- or couple thousand - motorists are doing exactly what they're doing.

The poor dears must actually believe the TV car commercials - the ones
that show that buying the "new 2007 Belchmobile" will magically remove
all other cars from the road. (How _do_ the ad producers keep all other
cars out of their shots?) When they harness themselves to another
$30,000 debt and find themselves still stuck in traffic, they feel angry.

Unfortunately, Brent seems to suffer the same anger - probably due to
his time spent driving. At the very least, he should study Zoot and
learn to cuss with style. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Ed.Toronto@gmail.com

On Jul 16, 4:18 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I never bother to slow down, never mind stop, for right turns or "T"
> intersections -- why go to the trouble? You're not actually taking up a
> lane. Otherwise I treat reds like stops (pause, look & go), and stops
> like yields (slow & go). My bike's heavy, but not 2 tons and I'm strong,
> but not 200hp.

Yeah, you're one of the bicycling twits who add to the danger of my
ride. Idiots who do a swooping right turn right through a red or a
stop sign. Generally without a care, and certainly not looking to the
left before doing their swoop.

"You're not actually taking up a lane." Uh--you on your bicycle are
now exactly in the way of me and my bicycle, because we are both
bicycles and we both take about the same line. Since I have the green
light, or I have gone to the trouble of stopping at the stop sign, it
pisses me off to have you Fred/troll appear in my path. If I am going
35 or 40 km/h because I'm sprinting to make the green light, it really
pisses me off some more to have to hit the brakes because of you wally
idiot. One day some idiot like you will run into me. Guess what--
you're going to be paying for a new bicycle for me.

Stupid Wally/Fred/troll.

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <1oKdnUzJdY_LzgDbnZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unlike you, I have never hit another cyclist. I also have never had
>>>> a bike crash or a car crash. Maybe you should listen to reason.
>>>
>>> Ride around kids on bikes some time. They are unpredictable, more
>>> than you. They also don't obey rules, like you. Throw in some blind
>>> corners. PLUS they crash into you.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They don't crash into me. I think you need to be more careful.
>
> I have had more close calls (and accidents caused) from children while
> riding a bicycle than from motor vehicles.
>

Wow, that's a shocker. I'm extra-careful where ever children might be
found, seems like the civilized thing to do.

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <KtadnbboN5cAZADbnZ2dnUVZ_qbinZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> You seem to invent your own language. I think your drinking your own
>> Kool-Aid.
>
> I think you're a moron and a bit of a troll. I didn't invent the term
> "magic words", it was common in the bicycing newsgroups some years ago.
> Seems like the groups have been taken over by idiot POBs.
>
>

Right, and you don't call names. either.

Peter Cole

Ed.Toronto@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 16, 4:18 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I never bother to slow down, never mind stop, for right turns or "T"
>> intersections -- why go to the trouble? You're not actually taking up a
>> lane. Otherwise I treat reds like stops (pause, look & go), and stops
>> like yields (slow & go). My bike's heavy, but not 2 tons and I'm strong,
>> but not 200hp.
>
> Yeah, you're one of the bicycling twits who add to the danger of my
> ride. Idiots who do a swooping right turn right through a red or a
> stop sign. Generally without a care, and certainly not looking to the
> left before doing their swoop.

Not me. I don't go anywhere I don't have a sight line, legally or
otherwise. What's your beef? Dangerous cycling or illegal cycling?
They're not the same you know. Lot's of really bad (dangerous)
cyclists/drivers out there obeying the letter, if not the spirit, of the
law.


> "You're not actually taking up a lane." Uh--you on your bicycle are
> now exactly in the way of me and my bicycle, because we are both
> bicycles and we both take about the same line. Since I have the green
> light, or I have gone to the trouble of stopping at the stop sign, it
> pisses me off to have you Fred/troll appear in my path. If I am going
> 35 or 40 km/h because I'm sprinting to make the green light, it really
> pisses me off some more to have to hit the brakes because of you wally
> idiot. One day some idiot like you will run into me. Guess what--
> you're going to be paying for a new bicycle for me.

Believe it or not, avoiding collisions with bikes is way easier than
with cars -- I thought that would be obvious, but you guys seem to be
doing a lot of crashing into bikes & kids -- maybe you ought to rethink
the way you cycle.
>
> Stupid Wally/Fred/troll.
>

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <PMSdncLhLOlbYgDbnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>
>> That's why we have mirrors on cars. You really should be more attentive.
>
> You shouldn't be a dumbshit. Mirrors are why I haven't collided with a
> moron like you. In fact, when I see you asshats coming I'll put my car
> close enough to the curb so you can't get by, forcing at least some
> better behavior out you.

Oh, so you're one of *those* guys. Somehow I just knew it, a "teach 'em
a lesson" type. Guess what? You're only a "majority" in your own mind.
In reality, you're maybe one in a hundred or one in a thousand, thank
god. You're a fringe lunatic, you know.

Remember, that's a $400 mirror you're putting in their path, wouldn't
want to see anything happen that would you?

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:
> In article <vMWdndD0i4IpmAPbnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> If you aren't going to obey the passing spacing laws, why should the
>>> driver?
>
>> You're equating minor cosmetic damage to your car with serious bodily
>> harm/death. Do you realize how crazy that sounds?
>
> You can be seriously harmed crashing into a parked car. Again, if you're
> not going to respect spacing, even for your own safety, why should the
> driver?
>
>

You *are* nuts.

Arif Khokar

Peter Cole wrote:

> Lot's of really bad (dangerous) cyclists/drivers out there obeying the
> letter, if not the spirit, of the law.

Could you give an example of a cyclist obeying right-of-way rules to the
letter riding in a dangerous manner?

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Lot's of really bad (dangerous) cyclists/drivers out there obeying
>> the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.
>
> Could you give an example of a cyclist obeying right-of-way rules to the
> letter riding in a dangerous manner?

Sure, a few come quickly to mind: riding in the door zone, not slowing
down when peds/children are around, or when sight lines are blocked
(double parkers, blind driveways, etc.)

We have a spot on our weekly club ride where there's a hairpin curve
that's got foliage to the curb. It's common for a pack of riders to go
around at high speed. One day I saw a woman pushing a stroller just
around the turn (no sidewalk). If she had been perhaps 20' further along
the pack would have very likely hit her.

Another dumb thing is pace lines in urban areas, again because of
blocked sight lines. An acquaintance was drafting another rider when
that rider quickly dodged around a wrong-way rider leaving the trailing
rider no time to react, he was injured, badly.

Another is sprinting in traffic. Coming unclipped, breaking a chain or
even just a gear skip can dismount you into traffic. That's just
acceleration, it's really dumb in general to exceed the conditions, no
matter what the posted speeds are, that includes outrunning your lights
at night.

I personally would never stand alone in a left/straight mixed use lane
waiting for a light or traffic break, either, just too invisible. I
don't trust driver's turn signals or lack of them, ditto for "eye
contact". I expect any/all drivers to left/right hook, and I look both
ways when entering a one-way street.

I don't use hand signals when I'm not absolutely sure that I won't have
to brake or swerve suddenly, I've seen more than one rider go down that way.

I rarely pass moving long vehicles (trucks, buses) even when perfectly
legal.

I never ride through standing water if there's any way I can avoid it,
if not, I'll slow to a crawl. I avoid wet metal or painted surfaces.

About the only situation where I'd recommend breaking the right of way
rules for safety, rather than convenience is when I'm the only one
stopped at a light, especially at night, especially if the through
traffic is fast.

I usually won't ride outside of the marked travel lanes even if there's
a lot of shoulder.

If there are a lot of bikes around, I expect wrong-way and unlit riders
at night. I use a mirror constantly, not only to have situational
awareness for traffic, but to spot any overtaking cyclists. I'm usually
going as fast as I think is safe, so if somebody's going a lot faster I
assume it's a hazardous situation.

Many/most of these habits have come from either my own near misses or
the crashes of others I have seen. Most cyclists, even experienced ones,
seem blithely unaware of them.

Right of way rules are mostly for efficiency rather than safety (ever
notice what happens when the electricity fails? People don't have huge
pileups, just traffic jams. Roads (often particularly true for bike
lanes and MUP's) are not very bike-safe. Areas where cyclists are
infrequent are also much less safe due to poor driver
skill/anticipation/accommodation. Categorically, the biggest safety
failure among cyclists seems to be not to adjust to conditions.